Is Jowenko Echt Woowoo?

[volatile]

I though John Holmes was dead, turns out he's teaching English and American Literature.

His bio

Dr John Holmes is the author of a monograph on Sexuality, Belief and the Self in the Late Victorian Sonnet-Sequence (Ashgate, forthcoming), as well as various articles on Renaissance and Victorian literary culture. He is particularly interested in sexuality and sexual identity, imperialism and colonial encounters, and the intersection of literature and science. He teaches widely within the nineteenth century, and is the convenor of a module on ‘Nation and Empire’ on the MA in Victorian Literature and Culture.

Spring Term:

Module 4 Week 2
The Fleshly School of Poetry

Yeah, porn was getting him down a bit so he did a runner to turgidly suburban England to teach about sexuality (see the connection?) in Victorian literature.

He's gotten rid of the moustache as a disguise, so you probably wouldn't recognise him!

 

[Skibum]

I laughed when I read "The Fleshly School of Poetry" part. First read it as fleshy

 

[maccy]

Judging by their reasoning abilities and syntax, I suspect that many of them are very young. I was momentarily taken aback when "rebel" seemed offended that some of the myths he holds dear were objects of ridicule here. Could you or any other rationalist imagine being so ashamed of an article of faith that the thought of airing it outside a protected circle of true believers would make you cringe? The fantasists sense that their nonsense is indefensible, but their emotional commitment is so great that they can't take the logical next step of abandoning it.

I consider it a part of rational discourse that you encourage people to criticise your assumptions and the arguments you make. That's partly why I find the sophistry and the attempted point-scoring so frustrating.

Even if Jowenko considers the evidence and changes his mind it won't matter - the story will then be that he was "got to" by the authorities. Something that somebody says once (often on 9/11 itself, or a few days afterwards) is considered to show the truth no matter what else they say.

 

[maccy]

They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

Yes, that's true, but I'm finding it hard to imagine a teenager claiming to be 46, for example. I suspect that some people just don't grow up.

 

[chipmunk stew]

On WTC7 he is only one among many - and from what Ron has to say he doesn't seem to be very familiar with the damage to WTC7 and the extent of the fire.

Once the final WTC7 NIST report comes out, I'm hoping that someone can get him to read it and give his reaction.

I have a feeling his curiosity is piqued enough that he'll eagerly seek it out for himself.

 

[bonavada]

when and how?

when and how does jowenko think that the building was prepped for cd? surely not on 9/11? if on the day then, if he is any kind of a rational man, the heavy damage and fires in that building that morning must make him doubt CD??

BV

 

[Spins]

Ron here is the thread you seek...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63884

...rikzilla called him soon after the video was made. Since then as far as I'm aware he's stopped talking to conspiracy theorists etc, no doubt because he has been harassed constantly since appearing on that video.

It's possible since he is now privy to all the info on WTC 7 (fires, damage, design compromises etc) he's changed his mind?

 

[uk_dave]

So one solitary demolition contractor in the world believes WTC7 was CD based upon his preconceptions about the US govt and a bit of video without (apparently) any reference to eyewitness reports of severe structural damage, massive fires, sounds of structural movement or the preliminary findings of NIST?

whooooopeeeedoooooo

Well, I'm convinced.

How about you?

 

[einsteen]

Did you ask them all uk_dave ?

 

[uk_dave]

Did you ask them all uk_dave ?

No, did you?

You like a bit of physics, right?

Let's say that a group physicists come up with a theory which proves that gravity doesn't exist, and this is adopted as fact by the US govt and is taught in schools and universities and has implications for many aspects of everyday life.

Now, do you have to contact every physicist in the world to obtain their opinions on this new theory, or do you sit back and wait for them to start complaining about this new no-gravity theory?

Let's say the US govt has a policy of denial when it comes to global climate change. Do I have to contact every climate scientist in the world to find out that they disagree with this policy?

http://www.realclimate.org/

I think not

 

[Architect]

Back Again!

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

 

[JimBenArm]

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

Glad you're back. Was too quiet without you around.

 

[R.Mackey]

Look, we've already beaten WTC 7 to death.

You cannot reconcile the building being blown up without simultaneously accusing the FDNY of being part of the plot.

Unless, of course, you think the building was going to burn and fall over, and they blew it up anyway.

The conclusions of a lone demo expert, going by web videos, from thousands of miles away, cannot change that fact.

 

[The Almond]

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

That's an excellent suggestion. Asking him to give his opinion on the matter is one thing, but asking him to write proofs and research his position is completely different. It would be especially interesting to see if he started his research in all of the Conspiracy Theory garbage, and later realized that it's all crap.

 

[David Wong]

Update:
I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one.

Wait, wait, wait. Did you ask him when exactly he thinks they had time to wire the building? He has to know that project takes months on a building that size.

So they wired the building knowing that 9/11 would happen, knowing it would be their opportunity to blow it up unnoticed?

The implications of that should make it impossible for a rational mind. He can't possibly think they saw the attacks, then rushed in and quickly wired the building to blow. There exists no technology or technique in the world of demolition that would let that be done, in a matter of hours, in the chaos of the event, in a burning building.

It is, literally, insane.

Count me gobsmacked.

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is what I see in all this:

1. he said the collapse "looked man made".
2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.
3. If buildings have not been brought down by any other means than CD in the past (except 1 or 2 via earth quakes, and those much much shorter), than what else could he say the collapse looked like.

Not like he could say "well, clearly it was brought down by aliens, as opposed to CD" as he only has CD collapses as a visual reference...as do we all. As far as I am concerned, I take his opinion for what it is, an opinion, all be it from an expert, based on his visual observence of said event.

I would like to know (1) has he read the NIST report on WTC7, and (2) if yes he has, then where does he disagree with them?

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.

Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks...

(bolding mine)

One of the fun things about being on an aircraft carrier, in communications, with a Top Secret clearance, was that there was always a possibility the ship would be in peril and you'd get to destroy classified material. We'd practice it in drills and war games. Written material would obviously be burned, but as for the equipment? We had these nice big fire axes strategically placed around the radio shack just for that purpose. The idea being: If the ship sinks in international waters, the USA didn't want the Russkies to be able to make any usage out of the comm and crypto gear for reverse engineering. Sadly, we never actually got to whale away at the equipment with fire axes. I would have quite enjoyed that.

Point: If you wish to destroy "secret intelligence findings" housed in a building, wouldn't it be far easier to just go in and surgically remove or destroy it? Sheez! Even if you have to pay off a few security guys to look the other way. What Jowenko is indicating, is that along with the "secret intelligence", Building 7 was also pre-rigged to blow. And then what you do is wait for a convenient terrorist attack in the vicinity, and then, amidst all the confusion, you blow up the building and claim it was collateral damage from all of the other commotion.

Very seldom in science or true skepticism does a thought methodology just stop. A cul-de-sac. End of the line. In reality, the process continues. Yet for so many believers of woo - a statement is made with the implication that no further analysis is required. Beam Weapons: Perfect example. Theorized as the culprit for the collapse. Not necessary to reveal that no such weapons are in existence.

Finally: Destroying a building to eradicate "secret intelligence" within is exceedingly UN-thorough. Very possible that some of it would survive the event, and be recognized for what it is.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?

Exactly. This is why, despite him being an expert, by feeling on his opinion of WTC7, is that his expertese is being clouded by his personal suspicions...

TAM

 

[Arus808]

haha. simply put; it would be easier to rig a bulding with thousands of explosives to destroy at most, 10 floors out of a 47 building that may have "some sort of top-secret-stuff".

than to go out and buy 100 Shredders from Costco/Samsclub and shred those documents (and many shredders are now equiped to render CD'sDVD's useless! We "shred" cd's on a daily basis.) And nothing like a high powered magnet to computer systems to wipe them clean?

let see millions of dollars to make a building look like collateral damage

$10,000 at most to destroy "top secret" documents/equipment/stuff